Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Greenbay May Want AB!

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Tobias put it perfectly, Chow (and Pete Caroll) have only been at USC for a short time. Any QBs taken prior to their coming can't be compaired. Most of the time when there's a prior bust QB from the same ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-14-2006, 09:48 AM   #61
500th Post
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Newark, DE
Posts: 540
RE: Greenbay May Want AB!

Tobias put it perfectly, Chow (and Pete Caroll) have only been at USC for a short time. Any QBs taken prior to their coming can't be compaired. Most of the time when there's a prior bust QB from the same school it's because the HC has been there for 15-20 years so the system hasn't changed. USC runs a pro-style offense because it's what Caroll ran when he was an HC in the pros.

As for a backup, let's get rid of Brooks and Bouman. But then it comes down to a QB to compete for the starting possition/teach the rookie. That's the only reason I'd want Kitna. The last year he started (2003) he had an 87.4 rating and 26 TDs vs 15 Ints. Plus he's mentored a USC QB to become a starter.
BJSim is offline  
Latest Blogs
REFUND Last Blog: 12-07-2014 By: xan




Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


Old 02-14-2006, 10:19 AM   #62
100th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 324
RE: Greenbay May Want AB!

My question was as to the use of the word RAW made by others and that basically they are all RAW, as they all lack the experience, so to debate the values of one over the other you need to look into the system to which they are placed or to be placed with the tools they have. I am not knocking chow as I think he is an offensive genius, and the two BYU QB's you mentioned were good QB's Young esspeccially (but both were very mobile and strong armed QB's) But there are three in 20 odd years . I did here the comment on Palmer somewhere by an analyist, and I'll have to do some searching when I have the time to find it. The point I was trying to make was that I don't think any drafted QB will start this year, unless the new coaching design that system around him, and the tools (offensive tools that we will have in place).
That being said I would rather see Brooks or a quality strted this year in particualar running the offense for one year while whomever is drafted gets up to pro speed and the team fills some other glarring holes. If Brooks is traded so be it(granted that trade brings a quality player or additional picks), but hopefully there is someone who can step in immediatly to run the offense in whatever shape it takes this year.

Soory for not spelling the comment out.
FanNJ is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 12:17 PM   #63
Boondock Saint
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: F***ing Atlanta
Posts: 299
Greenbay May Want AB!

FanNJ,
I understand, I guess I should have made myself clearer. Matt JOnes as a receiver was "RAW", VY, JCutler, MVick, ABrooks. I used RAW as a broad term, mainly plenty athletic, and either has not played the position much, or is plain stupid.

Anyone in the league more than three years and still considered a "RAW" talent is a waste of time. Most rookies will be a "Raw" talent as far as rookie production, exceptions: many defensive players have a chance to be good right off, RB's, and TE's. WR's DB's, Lineman, will be considered raw their first year because lack of NFL experience, but as far as a college player they could have been pretty darn good.

My main point is AB is killing our team and I want him gone. VY could be great, but he was not even a polished QB in college, neither was Cutler or many other QB's. Leinart is polished and he is the man and I want him on the Saints. Do we need a veteran? Maybe, Peyton did just fine starting from day one, you need an intelligent QB that will not get down on himself to get away with that. Maybe Leinart is that, maybe not, either way we need someone else in case of injury, AMAC isn't ready yet, unless he progressed more than JHaslett lead on. I would take Kitna in a heartbeat.
WhoDatQB is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 01:03 PM   #64
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,392
...aahh... semantics... it's a beautiful thing...

"raw talent" usually means that a player has physical, non-teachable abilities. "Talent" is something that has yet to be fullfilled into an actual skill.
Ex:
guy can throw the ball 80 yards = raw talent
guy can throw the ball 80 yards and put the ball in front of the receiver on full stride on the shoulder away from the defender = NFL skill.

Here's something tangible:
Matt Leinart can throw a screen pass better than Aaron Brooks.
Brooks has been in the league for 6 years now, and still can't throw a decent screen pass.
Leinart already knows how.

..again:
throwing the ball = raw talent
throwing a good screen passs in front of your receiver in full stride: NFL skill.

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is online now  
Old 02-14-2006, 02:05 PM   #65
100th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 324
I guess I will agree to disagree on what we are evaluating and that's the point of this Sh!t. First I will preempt that My mind is not made up yet on who should be picked, but I don't think Leinart is the short or long term solution. I would rather see a Young or better yet Cutler, ride the pine for a year, and then come into the game, and I am willing to bet once the combines and the individual evaluations are complete you will not see Leinart in NO. Something scares me about seeing him more in US magazine than hearing about him hitting the gym. And it is funny how with all this team has been through you don't here more from the players about the supposed lame duck quarterback and how he was the reason for the losses (Other than the fight with Grant two years back, I have actually heard the opposite (not that the duck did not call himself out either), so that is one reason why I think he'll be back for one more season.

To respond to the second, response that is, I agree there has not been a decent screen pass, but is that because there is 0 chip on and of the defenders? There always seems to be a defender right on the back leaving the backfield and then either a short throw or a sack (don't know who to blame for that?) But looking beyond the screen pass you also need to make the passes downfield and into tight coverage. That's some thing unless we get some 6-5 recievers with a great vertical leinart I am afraid will not be able to do.

Hell I'll support whomever they put back there next year, but I just think alot of people will be dissapointed, but pleasantly surprised. Hell it;s the offseason we can all dream.
FanNJ is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 02:34 PM   #66
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 973
What's up with McPhereson? Is he or isn't he good enough?
FatiusJeebs is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 03:10 PM   #67
Boondock Saint
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: F***ing Atlanta
Posts: 299
Greenbay May Want AB!

Tobias-Reiper,


I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO THAT.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WhoDatQB is offline  
Old 02-14-2006, 06:56 PM   #68
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,392
Re: Greenbay May Want AB!

Originally Posted by WhoDatQB
Tobias-Reiper,


I HAVE ONE THING TO SAY TO THAT.



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why, thank you. I'll be here all week
Tobias-Reiper is online now  
Old 02-14-2006, 07:15 PM   #69
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,392
Originally Posted by FanNJ
I guess I will agree to disagree on what we are evaluating and that's the point of this Sh!t. First I will preempt that My mind is not made up yet on who should be picked, but I don't think Leinart is the short or long term solution. I would rather see a Young or better yet Cutler, ride the pine for a year, and then come into the game, and I am willing to bet once the combines and the individual evaluations are complete you will not see Leinart in NO. Something scares me about seeing him more in US magazine than hearing about him hitting the gym. And it is funny how with all this team has been through you don't here more from the players about the supposed lame duck quarterback and how he was the reason for the losses (Other than the fight with Grant two years back, I have actually heard the opposite (not that the duck did not call himself out either), so that is one reason why I think he'll be back for one more season.

To respond to the second, response that is, I agree there has not been a decent screen pass, but is that because there is 0 chip on and of the defenders? There always seems to be a defender right on the back leaving the backfield and then either a short throw or a sack (don't know who to blame for that?) But looking beyond the screen pass you also need to make the passes downfield and into tight coverage. That's some thing unless we get some 6-5 recievers with a great vertical leinart I am afraid will not be able to do.

Hell I'll support whomever they put back there next year, but I just think alot of people will be dissapointed, but pleasantly surprised. Hell it;s the offseason we can all dream.
..well, I don't see Young lasting long in the NFL, to be honest, because I don't see ANY NFL QB skills in him, and while I do have reservations about Leinart, I'm sure he can do better than Brooks.

As for not hearing about the "lame duck QB", well, there was Grant, there was Turley, and I'm sure there have been others, but for some reason - guess raw talent - Brooks has been cradled and protected by the coaching staff... I am pretty sure there have been other incidents that we the public don't hear of...

.. . there's also this thing called "pocket presence"... pocket presence is not raw talent, and it is a skill that can be learned, and you would think that it would take less than 5 years of playing QB as a starter... if you drop back further than your tackles, guess what, you will have someone in your face immediately, and would seem that there's always someone in the backfield.. I'm not absolving the o-line by no means, but if you don't know how to use the pocket, you are going to be doing some running back there...

Again, I don't think any college player is a solution to anything in the NFL until they prove me wrong, but looking at Leinart's football skills vs Brooks' lack thereof, I do think Leinart can do better than Brooks from the git-go.

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is online now  
Old 02-14-2006, 07:37 PM   #70
500th Post
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Newark, DE
Posts: 540
Wow Tobias, first I agree with you and now I don't, all in the same thread. But pleae don't take this as me wanting to have Brooks stick around.

Leinart, or any other rookie QB, probably won't do any better than Brooks has done historically. Most rookie QBs do horribly their first year, on average they have a QB rating of 68.1, where as Brooks rating last year was 70.0 and 79.7 career. Now these are first year starters: P.Manning (71.2), Roethlisberger (98.1), E.Manning (55.4), Orton (59.7), Bledsoe (65.0), Plummer (73.1), Boller (62.4), Carr (62.8), Harrington (59.9), Leftwich (73.0). And most of these guys (7 of 10) threw more Ints than TDs, something Brooks only did this year. Now I'm all for drafting Leinart, but statistic show it's best to sit him for a year.
BJSim is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts